146 So. 3d 975
Miss.2014Background
- Fulton was charged with receiving stolen property under Miss. Code Ann. §97-17-70 after alleged theft from Sobley Excavating.
- Indictment described property as a class: tractor batteries, battery cables, Mack truck batteries, and aluminum wheels.
- State moved to amend indictment to describe property as tractor battery box covers and Mack truck battery box covers.
- Trial court granted the amendment ten days before trial; Fulton was convicted as a habitual offender.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Fulton sought certiorari to challenge indictment sufficiency and the amendment.
- Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, vacating the conviction and remanding for dismissal or new proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency to describe stolen property | Fulton: description lacked particularity. | State: sufficient to notify defendant of charges. | Indictment fatally defective; insufficient description. |
| Amendment: form or substance | Amendment altered essential facts. | Court viewed as form; did not prejudice defenses. | Amendment substantive; required grand jury; conviction vacated. |
| Effect of amendment on offense description | Original charge adequate; amendment changed essential facts. | Amendment merely supplemented otherwise adequate description. | Amendment materially altered offense; improper. |
| Authority for amendment under URCCC 7.06 | Amendment allowed; did not alter substance. | Substance change requires grand jury authority. | Change amounted to substance; invalid without grand jury approval. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. State, 43 So. 610 (Miss. 1907) (indictment must describe property with sufficient particularity)
- Rutherford v. State, 17 So. 2d 803 (Miss. 1944) (vague quantity descriptions are insufficient in larceny-related indictments)
- Nguyen v. State, 761 So. 2d 873 (Miss. 2000) (receiving stolen property must describe items with specificity)
- Tucker v. State, 47 So. 3d 135 (Miss. 2010) ('athletic apparel' description insufficient; requires limits/quantities)
- Davis v. State, 181 Miss. 239, 179 So. 740 (Miss. 1938) (amendment may supplement description without changing the offense)